Marcus Crafter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 03:04:59PM +0200, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
>>>My question for you guys is whether you want me to force you to change
>>>your interface for Resettable, or to have MPool work by reflection and
>>>discover if there is a reset() method with public access. If that is
>>>the case, then MPool would be able to call it--whether there was an
>>>interface or not. I think the latter would be preferable, as it is
>>>much more flexible--I just need to make it explicit that is what is
>>>happening.
>>>
>>
>>We need a way to invoke the recycle() method in the current implementations,
>>so a support for Recyclable is required.
>
>
> This could be done with an Accessor lifecycle extension.
Yep. However, unless you include the old Pool package, the Recyclable
interface won't be accessible. It doesn't conflict in any way with
Fortress, it is just extra bulk--all for one interface.
Also, the experimental Lifecycle Extension mechanism will allow you
to do things that you probably wish you could with Cocoon, but otherwise
can't.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org